Memento
It seems to me that part of the problem that what's-his-face had was that he didn't ever keep a bag with him. I would have wanted to keep a bag with me so that I could keep things like a diary with me. That is one of the major weaknesses of the film: that he is relying solely on notes on slips of paper, annotated camera images and tattoos for his information. It seems to me that it would be far more efficient if he simply used a diary--in fact, if the film were made today, he could use a blog!
The reason for this observation has been that I was just thinking that I use this blog to make up for the deficiencies in my own short-term memory. I can get so deep into a particular philosophical exploration that it can be hard to remember how it got started. I can remember my project at hand, in this case, the investigation of the origins of capitalism. I can also remember the basic project, to be working towards an empirical theory of ethics. I can also remember the specific twist that the project has taken since my Masters thesis got evaluated, namely that I have been exploring the similarities and possible differences between ethics and science--specifically, analogies between ethics and the philosophy of science. But if I have to recall every detail of how which particular thread started, it gets very hard, and it is much easier just to look it up in the blog.
In this case, what I forgot was how the investigation into the origins of capitalism got started. I was trying to flesh out how capitalism originated so that I could use it as a convincing example of a moral observation that refuted the hierarchical ethic. In fact, capitalism blows the hierarchical ethic, at least in terms of an intrinsic hierarchy, right out of the water. Nothing like capitalism should be possible if your intrinsic worth is determined from birth and holds until death, as I noted in "An intrinsic versus a relational hierarchy". Therefore, the emergence of capitalism from the industrial revolution was the crucial observation that eventually falsified the hierarchical theory of ethics that had been dominant for thousands of years before the new social order.
The reason for this observation has been that I was just thinking that I use this blog to make up for the deficiencies in my own short-term memory. I can get so deep into a particular philosophical exploration that it can be hard to remember how it got started. I can remember my project at hand, in this case, the investigation of the origins of capitalism. I can also remember the basic project, to be working towards an empirical theory of ethics. I can also remember the specific twist that the project has taken since my Masters thesis got evaluated, namely that I have been exploring the similarities and possible differences between ethics and science--specifically, analogies between ethics and the philosophy of science. But if I have to recall every detail of how which particular thread started, it gets very hard, and it is much easier just to look it up in the blog.
In this case, what I forgot was how the investigation into the origins of capitalism got started. I was trying to flesh out how capitalism originated so that I could use it as a convincing example of a moral observation that refuted the hierarchical ethic. In fact, capitalism blows the hierarchical ethic, at least in terms of an intrinsic hierarchy, right out of the water. Nothing like capitalism should be possible if your intrinsic worth is determined from birth and holds until death, as I noted in "An intrinsic versus a relational hierarchy". Therefore, the emergence of capitalism from the industrial revolution was the crucial observation that eventually falsified the hierarchical theory of ethics that had been dominant for thousands of years before the new social order.
Comments